We Don’t Need Celebrity Teachers

In a recent posting on Good Education, Jose Vilson lamented how there aren’t any celebrity K-12 teachers who can “speak to the collective conscience of the educational experience,” as if this was somehow a prerequisite for teachers to gain the autonomy, status and respect they deserve.

This is a completely absurd notion with some pretty unfortunate implications. Anthony Bourdain, Wolfgang Puck and Jamie Oliver may have increased the number of people wanting to cook good food at home, but they have done nothing to elevate the status or wages of the hash slingers and burger flippers who do the majority of restaurant cooking. If anything, the glorification of celebrity chefs contributes to the misperception that good restaurants are the product of a single talented artisan, obscuring the contributions of the prep cooks, servers, buyers and dishwashers. Teaching, like cooking, is a social endeavor. Individual teacher skill depends on interactions with colleagues, families, mentors, while the quality of a school improve more when there is collaboration and support between teachers than on the existence of one or two excellent teachers working in isolation.

In order to gain celebrity K-12 teacher status, one must go so far over and beyond the basic responsibilities (and sanity) required for the job that it makes the rest of us look like shirkers in comparison. Consider Jaime Escalante (from Stand and Deliver fame), who worked late into the evenings and on weekends and summers (usually without compensation), who gave himself a coronary as a result of all the extra stress and toil. Is this the bar we want the public to expect from the rest of us? And even with all his crazy extra work, Escalante’s successes have been greatly exaggerated. His story was, like those of most folk heroes, a hagiographic blend of legend, myth, and cover up.

I do empathize with Vilson’s sentiments. It is unpleasant to work so hard at something, to put one’s heart and soul into it, and be rewarded by politicians, pundits and so-called reformists with accusations of being lazy, greedy or inadequate. Our status, compensation and autonomy do seem to be declining, but that is only because they actually are declining—a direct result of repeated attacks by the capitalist class, which correctly recognized that they could get exactly what they needed from public education (compliant, passive employees) at a fraction of the cost by slashing funding, thus reducing the amount of tax dollars sucked from their thin wallets to pay for educating other people’s children. They realized that the more they deskilled the teaching profession (e.g., increased testing, online education, scripted curriculum), the weaker our position would be in demanding decent wages and benefits. They understood that the more they attacked, the more defensive we would become and the less able we would be to advocate for things like academic freedom and autonomy, smaller class sizes, or curricula that challenges existing socioeconomic relations.

If teachers want greater respect, status, autonomy and remuneration, they will get it by demanding it as a class, not by relying on a few martyrs who are willing to sacrifice their personal lives and work 80-hour weeks in order to be noticed. They can do this by collectively refusing to work until politicians back off with all their anti-teacher, anti-child “reforms;” until they fund education sufficiently to so that ample numbers of nurses, counselors, librarians and teachers can be hired and paid generously; and until they give the teachers the authority to make the important decisions and run the school themselves.

Biggest Union Vote in 70 Years?

Healthcare has continued to be one of the more profitable sectors of the economy, even during the recession. In 2009, Kaiser Permanente made $6 billion in profits (see In These Times), but still demanded concessions and layoffs, something the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) readily gave up in exchange for insignificant promises to reduce corporate interference in union organizing.

Healthcare workers who were fed up with the autocracy, corruption and wimpiness of the SEIU, (and the expulsion of Sal Roselli as head of an SEIU affiliate in 2009), created an opposition union called the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). Led by Roselli, the NUHW took on the SEIU at Kaiser Permanent, California, in a decertification vote in 2010. They lost, but the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in July 2011 that Kaiser had colluded with SEIU and engaged in illegal campaigning and interference with NUHW organizing, thus invalidating the results of that vote.

After several failed appeal attempts by SEIU, it looks like a new decertification vote is set for early this year in what would be the largest private sector representation vote in the past 70 years.

There are several differences between 2010 and today, most notably that NUHW has formally affiliated with the California Nurses Association (CNA), one of the more “militant” unions in the state. Together, CNA and NUHW have already led two strikes against the concessions to Kaiser in the past 16 months, while CNA has engaged in numerous 1-3 day walkouts at other California hospitals. The alliance gives NUHW greater access to strike support (CNA has 85,000 members) and CNA resources to fund NUHW organizing. According to Roselli, the alliance also protects them against a forced merger with the SEIU.

The alliance between CNA and NUHW will likely inflame hostilities between CNA and SEIU, which had agreed to a truce after the 2009 ouster of Roselli. The truce was intended to facilitate organizing efforts at non-union hospitals nationwide. Yet many of the new union members were represented by SEIU, which has regularly cut lousy deals with the hospitals and sold out their members.

During the CNA-NUHW anti-concessions strikes in California, SEIU urged its members to cross the picket lines and tried (but failed) to get California legislators to weaken the state’s safe staffing laws. According to In These Times, CNA Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro called [SEIU President] Regan a management hack, possibly the “most despicable ‘labor leader’ that we have ever encountered” because of his collaboration with hospital owners. DeMoro also said that Regan called for nurses to give up their meals and breaks and the safety of their patients to help hospitals save $400 million because of the state budget crisis” While SEIU has always been a pro-corporate business union, these actions made it even more obvious which side they are on.

While the SEIU is clearly on the side of management, the CNA and NUHW are only “militant” in comparison. Their tactic of engaging in roving one- to two-day strikes is meant to minimize public hostility, as well as the organizing and discipline necessary to sustain a protracted full-scale strike—a strategy more indicative of trepidation and conciliation than militancy. It also leaves more funds for administrative salaries since the union can avoid paying out strike benefits. In 2012, CNA paid out $2.8 million in salaries for its leaders, according to the WSWS, while spending nothing on strike benefits for its members.

CNA’s commitment to solidarity is also questionable, as it abandoned NUHW in 2009 when its turf war with SEIU first began. In a 2012 struggle against Sutter Health, CNA jeopardized the bargaining power of its members at larger sites, like Berkeley’s Alta Bates Hospital, in exchange for easier settlements at smaller sites, according to the WSWS.

Majority of New Grads Embrace Vow of Poverty

The majority of new grads say they would gladly take a pay cut if that meant they could do something that “made a difference,” according to a recent survey by Net Impact. The survey found that 72% of graduating seniors felt that making a “positive societal impact” was essential to their happiness, while 45% said they would take a 15% pay cut to work at an organization they believed was making such an impact, according to Good Education.

Of course similar secular vows of poverty have been embraced for generations by teachers, nurses, social workers and others in the “helping” and care industries. People do not go into these professions to get rich—that’s not possible on a teacher’s, nurse’s or social worker’s salary—but because they want to do something positive for society. Indeed, this altruism is exploited by managers, administrators, politicians and pundits who know the do-gooders will continue to line up for jobs, even when wages and working conditions are declining.

However, there is something particularly twisted and irrational when framed as a willingness to take a pay cut in exchange for the belief that one was “making a difference.”

Considering that material insecurity and social inequality are probably the social issues most immediately threatening to the majority of people’s health and wellbeing (second only to climate change in terms of the long-term threat to global peace and security), it seems bizarre that a comfortable and secure income for all, including recent graduates and those in the “helping” fields, would not be considered a pressing social issue.

Yet even for those who see this as a pressing social need, there are very few jobs out there with this focus and it is questionable whether they are actually doing anything to improve people’s material wellbeing. Most paid union positions, for example, are bureaucratic, while the real power of a union lies in its members and their willingness to take job actions, something union bureaucracies have been increasingly discouraging (see here, here and here). There are also numerous jobs in social work, advocacy and services for the poor and the homeless, but these mostly provide temporary relief and do little or nothing to actually end homelessness and poverty.

Another way to parse the “vow of poverty” statistic is that large numbers of recent college grads accept social inequity, poverty, hunger, homelessness and suffering as normal and unalterable aspects of life, so they might as well get paid to provide some assistance to those who are suffering. By accepting low pay for this work, however, they are also accepting the notion that jobs in the “helping” fields are worth less than those in tech, finance, law or business, thus helping to keep these professions undervalued. And by taking jobs that depend on the continuation of social inequity, rather than fighting to end the causes, they help perpetuate the same problems they seek to remedy, by making it easier for the rest of society to ignore the problems.

It is even questionable whether recent grads truly prefer the belief they are doing good in society over having a decent salary. Consider that the study found that 24% of ”Millennials” are dissatisfied with their current job, compared with 14% of Gen Xers and 18% of Boomers. While this might be due to innately different values between the generations, it is likely influenced by the fact Gen Xers, and especially Boomers are more likely to have job stability, higher income, better benefits, better chances to live a comfortable, middle class American Dream lifestyle compared with the Millenials, who are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in college debt, a protracted recession, decimated union movement, and a job market dominated by low income service sector jobs.

Strike Wave Continues: Nurses Announce One-Day Strike For 9/22

The recently ended Verizon strike was the largest U.S. strike in recent years, involving 45,000 union members. However, 62,000 Southern California grocery workers are on the verge of striking against Vons, Albertson’s and Ralph’s. The ILWU has been engaged in a long-standing and violent battle in Washington State for the past year, in which military force has been threatened against striking longshoremen. The UAW has recently agreed to postpone a strike against Ford pending settlements with workers at GM and Chrysler. 1,300 workers are striking against American Crystal Sugar. Hotel workers have been striking against Hyatt in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Honolulu. And 25,000 New York City carpenters were recently poised to launch the first citywide construction strike in 80 years.

Now, 23,000 registered nurses at 34 Northern and Central California hospitals are planning a one-day strike for Thursday, September 22, according to Labor Union Report. The strike will primarily affect two of California's largest hospital chains, Sutter Health and Kaiser Permanente, and Children's Hospital Oakland.

RNs are protesting major new cuts in patient care and nursing standards. Among the changes, Sutter wants to reduce the ability of nurses to advocate for their patients, force them work when sick, raise their out-of-pocket healthcare costs, and subject them to arbitrary disciplinary policies, despite having made $3.7 billion in profits over the last six years. Kaiser and Children’s Hospital RNs are protesting cuts to their healthcare and retirement coverage, as well as unsafe staffing policies.

Nurses struck Children’s hospital for five days in May over contract disputes and attacks on their benefits. They also struck last year over wages.

Attacks on nurses’ unions and their working conditions have been increasing as large corporate hospitals attempt to increase their profit margins on the nurses’ backs. Hospitals, in general, have mostly done away with the traditional (and common sense) strategy of leaving rooms and beds unoccupied to accommodate patients during emergencies and disasters, consequently increasing the number of patients. They have cut staffing levels, placing patients at risk and increasing the workloads of nurses and other staff members.

Nurses at Washington Hospital Center (WHC) in Washington, D.C., distributed leaflets to patients earlier this year informing them of the consequences of understaffing at WHC. The fliers said that patients were significantly harmed by human errors at a rate of one injury every eight days at WHC, with a death every 45 days, according to an article in Common Dreams. The hospital’s response to the nurses’ act of free speech was to disrupt their union meeting and ban future union meetings from the site. The actions by management led to a series of short strike actions by the WHC nurses.

Nurses’ strikes have also occurred this year in Boston, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and numerous other locations, while teachers have also been protesting attacks on the nursing profession, most recently and appallingly, the new California law allowing teachers to rectally inject diastat into students who are having seizures, rather than staffing schools with trained nurses to provide the medication. National Nurses United recently sponsored a protest against Wall Street speculation, arguing that bankers’ greed was harming the health of regular Americans.

Those Radical Nurses: Make Wall Street Pay!

Wall Street Speculators, We're Coming For You (Image by Barbara Bessa)

Nurses from across the U.S. are planning to call on Congress members on September 1 to support a tax on Wall Street financial speculation. The OB Rag and the Left Labor Reporter say that nurses will be joined by other groups who are planning soup kitchens to help feed the hungry and homeless, community speak outs and street theater to draw attention to the growing wealth gap. Events are planned in large cities like Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Orlando, as well as smaller cities like Corpus Christi, Texas, Marquette, Mich., Bakersfield, Calif., Dayton, Ohio, and Worcester, Mass.

Nurses Marching (On Wall Street???) Image by timefornurses

 Sponsored by National Nurses United (NNU), the RNs will be calling on Congress members to support a Wall Street transaction tax and make it “pay for the devastation it has caused on Main Street.”

In a recent piece in the New York Times, Nancy Folbre, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, wrote that a 0.5% tax on trades of stocks, bonds, derivatives, currencies, credit default swaps, future options, and other exotic speculative transactions could bring in $175 billion annually. Contrary to the crocodile tears of Wall Street speculators, economist Mark Thoma says that only short-term trades will be affected by the tax, and these are based on speculation that has little social value.

Mark Thoma is being too generous. There is no social value whatsoever, only profits for a few rich people. And the nurses are being too generous, as well, asking for only a pittance from people who can afford far more. What about marginal tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes, each of which is at record or near record lows? If the rich had to pay taxes at the rates they were paying under their hero Reagan, which were higher than today, the government might bring in hundreds of billions or even a trillion each year. And if they paid the 80% marginal tax rate of the post-WWII years, it would easily over a trillion annually.

According to the Left Labor Reporter, the NNU’s September 1 action is part of the union’s ongoing campaign to “Heal America; Make Wall Street Pay,” whose goal is to get Americans back to work, provide health care to all, and help the working class regain some of the ground we’ve lost over the last 30 years.

Of course Wall Street should pay through the teeth, but this will not heal America. In fact, regaining the ground we’ve lost over the last 30 years, will only take us back to a time when the wealth gap was huge rather than monstrous. The world will still be dominated by a tiny minority of people who will still possess the vast majority of the wealth and for whom the rest of us will still be forced to toil. There will still be poverty, as there was 30 years ago. There will continue to be people who lack health care, decent housing, adequate food, free time, or control over their own wellbeing and destiny.

Taxing the rich is a bandage and perhaps a decent first step. But if we really want to heal America, then we need to be fighting for an end to the wage system and bosses and for a system in which everyone has access to the good things in life.

California Passes Rectal Injection Bill For Teachers

If the headline doesn’t make it perfectly clear, crazy California has passed perhaps the looniest piece of legislation ever. SB161, which asks teachers to rectally inject diastat (valium) into students who are having epileptic seizures, just passed the state assembly on a vote of 47-16, with 17 abstentions.

Fortunately, teachers and other staff may volunteer to give the injections, but are not required to. I say fortunately, because the instructions say that only personnel trained by medical professionals should administer the medication. The instructions require the medicine to be injected rectally while the patient is in the midst of a seizure, something that would be difficult even for trained personnel and that could easily result in mistakes that harm the student.

Click here for a demonstration video on how to administer Diastat

Refuse and Resist

All teachers should refuse to volunteer. They should refuse because this is a job for trained medical personnel like nurses, who the state should be adequately funding at every school site. They should refuse because it sets them up for liability should they make a mistake. They should refuse because it is not in their job description or training to strip students publicly, stick things into their rectums, and have to maintain the order and discipline of their remaining 30-35 students while they do so. And they should refuse out of solidarity with their nurse colleagues who have been pushed out of the schools as a result of budget cuts.

The nurses unions oppose the legislation, not only because it encourages the downsizing of nursing staffs (if teachers can administer medicine, then why do we need nurses?), but also because it is dangerous for students. Sandre Swanson (Dem., Oakland) implored his colleagues to vote no, saying they should “work immediately to fund nurses at schools,” according to the Sacramento Bee. Unfortunately, his Democratic colleagues ignored his pleas and voted for the bill.

Force Teachers to Inject Students or Hire More Nurses?

The following is an expanded version of the letter I sent to the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday:

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article today by Bob Egelko, “Obama Administration steps into insulin shot fight,” about whether California can force teachers to inject the state’s 14,000 diabetic students. Egelko got the got the basics right: teachers are unqualified to provide injections, while nurses, who are qualified, have been so significantly downsized that half of California’s school districts no longer have them. However, the Justice Department’s assertion that non-nurses should be allowed to give shots is absurd and shows great disregard for the safety of students.

Furthermore, Egelko’s claim that educators support non-nurses giving injections is simply not true. As a teacher and a union organizer I know my colleagues are opposed. Teachers lack the experience and skill of nurses, as well as the time and environment to safely give injections. While giving shots, teachers are still responsible for 30-40 other students, in contrast to nurses, who can give injections in their offices, without other students present. Needles are potentially dangerous instruments. Distractions can lead to accidents or compromise the safety of other students, including the transmission of HIV or hepatitis.

Allowing non-nurses to give injections discourages school districts from hiring more nurses. This can undermine student achievement, as nurses provide routine healthcare that helps keep uninsured children in class. Lack of insurance can increase absences by up to 40%, according to education researcher Richard Rothstein, exacerbating the risk of failure. In a study of Baltimore school children, high school drop-outs averaged 27.6 absences per year, while graduates averaged only 11.8.

The solution is obvious: restore K-12 funding. With $18 billion cut over the last three years in California, it is not surprising that schools have cut nurses (as well as librarians, counselors, teachers and services). Unfortunately, this option is off the table, as the ruling elite would rather risk the safety of other people’s children than accept even a modest tax increase. With over 600,000 millionaires and 80 billionaires, a 1-2% income tax increase just on California’s rich, (and another 1-2% increase on their capital gains), could bring in billions of much needed revenue.